From new stealth bombers to AI-enabled drones, the U.S. and China are reshaping airpower for a Pacific showdown – each betting its technology can keep the other out of the skies.

The U.S. is charging ahead with its next-generation F-47 fighter, while China scrambles to catch up with jets designed to match the F-35 and F-22.

After a brief program pause in 2024, the Air Force awarded Boeing the contract in March for the F-47, a manned sixth-generation fighter meant to anchor America’s next air superiority fleet. The first flight is expected in 2028.

At the same time, the B-21 Raider, the stealth successor to the B-2, is deep into testing at Edwards Air Force Base. The Air Force plans to buy at least 100 Raiders – each built to survive inside heavily defended Chinese airspace.

The Pentagon is also betting on Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCAs – drones designed to fly alongside fighters as ‘loyal wingmen.’ Prototypes from Anduril and General Atomics are already in the air. Officials say CCAs will let one pilot control several drones at once.

China outpaces the rest of the world in the commercial drone market, but that doesn’t necessarily give it the advantage from a military perspective. 

‘I’m not sure that’s really true. In terms of high-end military drones that are really important to this fight, the U.S. still has a pretty significant edge.’ said Eric Heginbotham, a research scientist at MIT’s Center for International Studies. 

He pointed to the Air Force’s stealth reconnaissance platforms – the RQ-170 and RQ-180 – and upcoming ‘loyal wingman’ drones designed to fly with fighters as proof that the U.S. still leads in advanced integration and stealth technology.

China’s leap forward

China’s airpower modernization has accelerated as the U.S. reshapes its force. Beijing has zeroed in on three priorities – stealth, engines and carriers – the areas that long held its military back.

The Chengdu J-20, China’s flagship stealth fighter, is being fitted with the new WS-15 engine, a home-built powerplant meant to rival U.S. engines.

‘It took them a while to get out of the blocks on fifth generation, especially to get performance anywhere near where U.S. fifth gen was,’ Heginbotham said. ‘The J-20 really does not have a lot of the performance features that even the F-22 does, and we’ve had the F-22 for a long time.’

Meanwhile, China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, was commissioned this fall – the first with electromagnetic catapults similar to U.S. Ford-class carriers. The move signals Beijing’s ambition to launch stealth jets from sea and project power well beyond its coast.

Together, the J-20, the carrier-based J-35, and the Fujian give China a layered airpower network – stealth jets on land and at sea backed by growing missile coverage.

Chinese military writings identify airfields as critical vulnerabilities. PLA campaign manuals call for striking runways early in a conflict to paralyze enemy air operations before they can begin. Analysts believe a few days of concentrated missile fire could cripple U.S. bases across Japan, Okinawa and Guam.

‘The U.S. bases that are forward deployed – particularly on Okinawa, but also on the Japanese mainland and on Guam – are exposed to Chinese missile attack,’ said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ‘In our war games, the Chinese would periodically sweep these air bases with missiles and destroy dozens, in some cases even hundreds, of U.S. aircraft.’

Heginbotham said that missile-heavy strategy grew directly out of China’s early airpower weakness.

‘They didn’t think that they could gain air superiority in a straight-up air-to-air fight,’ he said. ‘So you need another way to get missiles out – and that another way is by building a lot of ground launchers.’

Different strategies, same goal

The two militaries are taking different paths to the same target: air dominance over the Pacific.

The U.S. approach relies on smaller numbers of highly advanced aircraft linked by sensors and artificial intelligence. The goal: strike first, from long range, and survive in contested skies.

China’s model depends on volume – mass-producing fighters, missiles, and carrier sorties to overwhelm U.S. defenses and logistics.

‘U.S. fighter aircraft – F-35s, F-15s, F-22s – are relatively short-legged, so they have to get close to Taiwan if they’re going to be part of the fight,’ Cancian said. ‘They can’t fight from Guam, and they certainly can’t fight from further away. So if they’re going to fight, they have to be inside that Chinese defensive bubble.’

Both sides face the same challenge: surviving inside that bubble. China’s expanding missile range is pushing U.S. aircraft farther from the fight, while American bombers and drones are designed to break back in.

The fight to survive

Heginbotham said survivability – not dogfighting – will define the next decade of air competition.

‘We keep talking about aircraft as if it’s going to be like World War II – they go up, they fight each other. That’s not really our problem,’ he said. ‘Our problem is the air bases themselves and the fact that aircraft can be destroyed on the air base.’

China, he warned, is preparing for that reality while the U.S. is not.

‘They practice runway strikes in exercises, they’re modeling this stuff constantly,’ Heginbotham said. ‘Unlike the United States, China is hardening its air bases. The U.S. is criminally negligent in its refusal to harden its air bases.’

Cancian’s war-game findings echo that vulnerability. He said U.S. surface ships and aircraft would likely have to fall back under missile fire in the opening days of a conflict.

‘At the initial stages of a conflict, China would have a distinct advantage,’ Cancian said. ‘Now, over time, the U.S. would be able to reinforce its forces, and that would change.’

Looking ahead

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2026–27 budget will determine how fast the U.S. can build out its F-47s, B-21s and CCAs – systems that will shape American airpower through the 2030s.

China’s rapid modernization is closing what was once a wide gap, but the U.S. still holds advantages in stealth integration, combat experience and autonomous systems.

‘The ability to protect our aircraft, whatever form those aircraft take, on the ground is going to be central to our ability to fight in the Asia theater,’ Heginbotham said.

‘Survivability is going to be key… The ability to protect and disperse your firepower is going to be central to whether we can really stay in this game.’

For decades, U.S. air dominance was taken for granted. In the Pacific, that advantage is no longer guaranteed. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced new efforts to ‘clean up’ the nation’s energy sector amid a corruption scandal and near-constant attacks from Russia.

Zelenskyy met with Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko on Sunday morning, saying he called on lawmakers to revamp the leadership at the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate and the State Energy Supervision Inspectorate, in addition to other efforts to expunge Russian influence in the sector.

‘In full coordination with law enforcement and anti-corruption bodies, ensure the renewal of the Asset Recovery and Management Agency and to promptly complete the competition for the position of Head of ARMA so that the new Head of the Agency can be selected by the end of this year,’ Zelenskyy wrote on X.

He further called on lawmakers to ‘promptly conduct an audit and prepare for sale the assets and shares in assets that belonged to Russian entities and to collaborators who fled to Russia. All such assets must operate one hundred percent in Ukraine’s interests – to support our defense and to contribute to Ukraine’s budget.’

The new energy initiative also comes after a former associate of Zelenskyy’s was accused of being the mastermind behind a $100 million embezzlement scheme involving nuclear energy.

Tymur Mindich, who was once Zelenskyy’s business partner, was identified by Ukraine’s anti-corruption watchdogs as being the orchestrator of a scheme involving top officials and Ukraine’s state nuclear power company. Prior to the scandal, some feared Mindich’s growing influence over Ukraine’s lucrative industries that he had access to because of his ties to Zelenskyy.

Mindich allegedly exerted control over loyalists who then pressured contractors for Energoatom, Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear power company, demanding kickbacks to bypass bureaucratic obstacles. The requested kickbacks were reportedly as high as 15%.

Zelenskyy himself was not implicated in the investigation.

The new effort comes as Zelenskyy says that his team is ‘working to ensure another start to negotiations’ on ending the war with Russia.

‘We are also counting on the resumption of POW exchanges – many meetings, negotiations, and calls are currently taking place to ensure this. I thank everyone who is helping. Thank you to everybody who stands with Ukraine,’ Zelenskyy wrote.

Ukraine’s president further said that he is preparing for a full week of diplomacy with Greece, France and Spain, as well as renewed negotiations over prisoner of war exchanges with Russia.

Zelenskyy will meet with officials in Greece on Sunday to discuss natural gas imports, while talks with France on Monday and Spain on Tuesday will center on bolstering Ukrainian air defenses.

Fox News’ Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

From new stealth bombers to AI-enabled drones, the U.S. and China are reshaping airpower for a Pacific showdown — each betting its technology can keep the other out of the skies.

The U.S. is charging ahead with its next-generation F-47 fighter, while China scrambles to catch up with jets designed to match the F-35 and F-22.

After a brief program pause in 2024, the Air Force awarded Boeing the contract in March for the F-47, a manned sixth-generation fighter meant to anchor America’s next air superiority fleet. The first flight is expected in 2028.

At the same time, the B-21 Raider, the stealth successor to the B-2, is deep into testing at Edwards Air Force Base. The Air Force plans to buy at least 100 Raiders — each built to survive inside heavily defended Chinese airspace.

The Pentagon is also betting on Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCAs — drones designed to fly alongside fighters as ‘loyal wingmen.’ Prototypes from Anduril and General Atomics are already in the air. Officials say CCAs will let one pilot control several drones at once.

China outpaces the rest of the world in the commercial drone market, but that doesn’t necessarily give it the advantage from a military perspective. 

‘I’m not sure that’s really true. In terms of high-end military drones that are really important to this fight, the U.S. still has a pretty significant edge.’ said Eric Heginbotham, a research scientist at MIT’s Center for International Studies. 

He pointed to the Air Force’s stealth reconnaissance platforms — the RQ-170 and RQ-180 — and upcoming ‘loyal wingman’ drones designed to fly with fighters as proof that the U.S. still leads in advanced integration and stealth technology.

China’s leap forward

China’s airpower modernization has accelerated as the U.S. reshapes its force. Beijing has zeroed in on three priorities — stealth, engines, and carriers — the areas that long held its military back.

The Chengdu J-20, China’s flagship stealth fighter, is being fitted with the new WS-15 engine, a home-built powerplant meant to rival U.S. engines.

‘It took them a while to get out of the blocks on fifth generation, especially to get performance anywhere near where U.S. fifth gen was,’ Heginbotham said. ‘The J-20 really does not have a lot of the performance features that even the F-22 does, and we’ve had the F-22 for a long time.’

Meanwhile, China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, was commissioned this fall — the first with electromagnetic catapults similar to U.S. Ford-class carriers. The move signals Beijing’s ambition to launch stealth jets from sea and project power well beyond its coast.

Together, the J-20, the carrier-based J-35, and the Fujian give China a layered airpower network — stealth jets on land and at sea backed by growing missile coverage.

Chinese military writings identify airfields as critical vulnerabilities. PLA campaign manuals call for striking runways early in a conflict to paralyze enemy air operations before they can begin. Analysts believe a few days of concentrated missile fire could cripple U.S. bases across Japan, Okinawa, and Guam.

‘The U.S. bases that are forward deployed—particularly on Okinawa, but also on the Japanese mainland and on Guam—are exposed to Chinese missile attack,’ said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ‘In our war games, the Chinese would periodically sweep these air bases with missiles and destroy dozens, in some cases even hundreds, of U.S. aircraft.’

Heginbotham said that missile-heavy strategy grew directly out of China’s early airpower weakness.

‘They didn’t think that they could gain air superiority in a straight-up air-to-air fight,’ he said. ‘So you need another way to get missiles out — and that another way is by building a lot of ground launchers.’

Different strategies, same goal

The two militaries are taking different paths to the same target: air dominance over the Pacific.

The U.S. approach relies on smaller numbers of highly advanced aircraft linked by sensors and artificial intelligence. The goal: strike first, from long range, and survive in contested skies.

China’s model depends on volume — mass-producing fighters, missiles, and carrier sorties to overwhelm U.S. defenses and logistics.

‘U.S. fighter aircraft—F-35s, F-15s, F-22s—are relatively short-legged, so they have to get close to Taiwan if they’re going to be part of the fight,’ Cancian said. ‘They can’t fight from Guam, and they certainly can’t fight from further away. So if they’re going to fight, they have to be inside that Chinese defensive bubble.’

Both sides face the same challenge: surviving inside that bubble. China’s expanding missile range is pushing U.S. aircraft farther from the fight, while American bombers and drones are designed to break back in.

The fight to survive

Heginbotham said survivability — not dogfighting — will define the next decade of air competition.

‘We keep talking about aircraft as if it’s going to be like World War II — they go up, they fight each other. That’s not really our problem,’ he said. ‘Our problem is the air bases themselves and the fact that aircraft can be destroyed on the air base.’

China, he warned, is preparing for that reality while the U.S. is not.

‘They practice runway strikes in exercises, they’re modeling this stuff constantly,’ Heginbotham said. ‘Unlike the United States, China is hardening its air bases. The U.S. is criminally negligent in its refusal to harden its air bases.’

Cancian’s war-game findings echo that vulnerability. He said U.S. surface ships and aircraft would likely have to fall back under missile fire in the opening days of a conflict.

‘At the initial stages of a conflict, China would have a distinct advantage,’ Cancian said. ‘Now, over time, the U.S. would be able to reinforce its forces, and that would change.’

Looking ahead

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2026–27 budget will determine how fast the U.S. can build out its F-47s, B-21s, and CCAs — systems that will shape American airpower through the 2030s.

China’s rapid modernization is closing what was once a wide gap, but the U.S. still holds advantages in stealth integration, combat experience, and autonomous systems.

‘The ability to protect our aircraft, whatever form those aircraft take, on the ground is going to be central to our ability to fight in the Asia theater,’ Heginbotham said.

‘Survivability is going to be key … The ability to protect and disperse your firepower is going to be central to whether we can really stay in this game.’

For decades, U.S. air dominance was taken for granted. In the Pacific, that advantage is no longer guaranteed. 

Former first lady Michelle Obama said Americans are ‘not ready’ to elect a woman to the White House, citing former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential election loss to President Donald Trump.

Obama made the comments to a crowd of women at the Brooklyn Academy of Music while promoting her new book, ‘The Look.’

‘As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain’t ready,’ she said on Friday.

‘That’s why I’m like, don’t even look at me about running, because you all are lying. You’re not ready for a woman. You are not,’ she continued.

The former first lady went on to say that she does not believe men in America are comfortable with a woman leading them.

‘You know, we’ve got a lot of growing up to do, and there’s still, sadly, a lot of men who do not feel like they can be led by a woman, and we saw it,’ Obama said.

In her book, which was released on Nov. 4, Obama touches on her journey with fashion, hair and beauty, as well as her time in the White House as the first Black woman to serve as first lady. She wrote that women in politics are often judged based on their physical appearance instead of their ability to lead.

‘During our family’s time in the White House, the way I looked was constantly being dissected — what I wore, how my hair was styled. For a while now, I’ve been wanting to reclaim more of that story, to share it in my own way. I’m thankful to be at a stage in life where I feel comfortable expressing myself freely — wearing what I love and doing what feels true to me. And I’m excited to share some of what I’ve learned along the way,’ Obama wrote on Facebook in June while promoting her book ahead of its release.

”The Look’ is about more than fashion. It’s about confidence. It’s about identity. It’s about the power of authenticity. My hope is that this book sparks conversation and reflection about the ways we see ourselves — and the way our society defines beauty,’ she added.

In his iconic dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988), the late, great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia brilliantly articulated why the Independent Counsel Statute unconstitutionally intruded upon the Executive Branch. This dissent laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court’s current constitutionalist majority to restore sanity to separation-of-powers jurisprudence by returning power to its rightful place: the Executive Branch, all of whose power is vested in the President of the United States who is elected by all Americans.

Leftists and other anti-democratic big-government types call this view the ‘unitary executive theory.’ In reality, it is just Article II of the United States Constitution. We The People loan executive power to our duly-elected President; we do not divvy it up among unelected, leftist federal bureaucrats. Scalia’s most famous line in the Morrison dissent was his characterization of the statute as ‘a wolf in wolf’s clothing,’ a play on the idiom of ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing.’ Scalia was illustrating how the violation of the separation of powers was unambiguous.

Former U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf of Massachusetts is another wolf in wolf’s clothing, despite his effort–aided by the leftist media–to package himself otherwise. Wolf was appointed to the bench by President Reagan in 1985, but he is no judicial conservative. Wolf received the stamp of approval from the most leftist home-state duo in Senate history: Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. The reason the approval of these radical senators was necessary lies in a century-old Senate tradition called the blue slip. Home-state senators can veto nominations of U.S. district judges, U.S. attorneys, and U.S. marshals. Nominees will not move forward without the return of blue slips from both home-state senators. Senators will not relinquish this extraordinary power because they are power-hungry and self-serving. They want to hand-select the federal prosecutor who could indict them, the federal judge who could try them, and the federal marshal who could escort them to prison.

Recently, Wolf resigned from his lifetime appointment. He had assumed senior status (a form of semi-retirement) during the Obama administration, allowing Obama—instead of the next Republican president–to appoint a leftist to replace Wolf in full-time judicial service. According to Wolf, President Trump has disregarded the rule of law in innumerable ways. Wolf wants to speak out about it and serve as a self-appointed spokesman for sitting judges who cannot. Wolf also has blasted the Supreme Court, claiming that the constitutionalist majority has enabled President Trump. Wolf has whined the Court has ruled 17 out of 20 times in the Trump administration’s favor on its emergency docket. Wolf has compared this success rate to that of players like Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and Sammy Sosa during Major League Baseball’s steroid era.

Wolf’s claim is absurd. The administration has succeeded so much at the Supreme Court thanks to its stellar team of legal all-stars, headed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Solicitor General John Sauer. Many other brilliant attorneys also deserve credit for the administration’s sterling Supreme Court performance.

Moreover, the rulings by Wolf’s fellow activist judges are clearly partisan and lawless. How many cases does Wolf think the administration should have won before the Court? Eight out of 20? Ten? Twelve? His statistical conspiracy gibberish is devoid of even a scintilla of legal analysis. Wolf is only interested in peddling nonsense to bash justices he plainly detests. Wolf also conveniently ignores the other side of the statistical coin. According to analysis from former top Senate counsel Michael Fragoso, district judges in Massachusetts ruled against the Trump administration on 27 out of 29 temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Wolf apparently has no issue with this disparity; rather, he seems to view these rulings as coming from beacons of judicial integrity.

Wolf has a history of conspiracy hogwash. For over a decade, he pursued a baseless case against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, history’s greatest justice. According to Wolf, Thomas had wilfully failed to make required disclosures. The Judicial Conference categorically rejected Wolf’s theory. Yet, over a decade after the case had been closed, Wolf testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee chaired by U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, another partisan and deranged conspiracy theorist. During one exchange, Wolf told a U.S. senator that former Reagan Solicitor General Rex Lee would have been disturbed by, as Wolf saw it, unethical behavior of Thomas. That senator was Mike Lee of Utah, and Solicitor General Lee was his deceased father. Sen. Lee rightfully erupted at Wolf’s despicable statement.

Sitting judges cannot speak out against President Trump according to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. They cannot use Wolf as their mouthpiece, either. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees need to subpoena Wolf to determine which judges are trashing President Trump through Wolf. If Wolf refuses to divulge the information, he should face contempt of Congress charges just like Trump allies Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro did.

If the identities of judges who speak through Wolf to bash President Trump become public, every one of those judges must face impeachment proceedings. No matter how difficult conviction by a two-thirds Senate supermajority will be, these rogue judges must suffer through the impeachment process to deter them and other judicial embarrassments from engaging in blatantly unethical behavior. These radical judges are illegally and dangerously subverting the will of American voters.

Wolf is a Sheldon Whitehouse, not a Ronald Reagan. Wolf plans to serve as the vehicle by which sitting judges can attempt to circumvent ethical constraints. He has spouted risible conspiracy tripe to denigrate the Supreme Court in general and Thomas in particular. He even has stooped to the all-time low of bringing up a senator’s deceased father in a pathetic attempt to score a few cheap political points. In short, Wolf is a disgrace to the federal judiciary, and his resignation is welcome news. Good riddance to this wolf in wolf’s clothing.

The FBI identified Keith Michael Lisa as the suspect wanted in connection to an attack this week on U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s office.

A reward of up to $25,000 is being offered by the FBI for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Lisa.

‘Keith Michael Lisa is wanted for allegedly entering the Peter W. Rodino Federal Building in Newark, New Jersey, on November 12, 2025, while in possession of a bat,’ according to the FBI. ‘After being denied entry, he discarded the bat and returned. Once inside the building, he proceeded to the U.S. Attorney’s Office where he damaged government property.’

‘A federal arrest warrant was issued for Lisa on November 13, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey after he was charged with Possession of a Dangerous Weapon in a Federal Facility and Depredation of Federal Property,’ the FBI added.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Thursday that an individual attempted to confront Alina Habba on Wednesday night, ‘destroyed property in her office’ and then ‘fled the scene.’

‘Thankfully, Alina is ok,’ Bondi added. ‘Any violence or threats of violence against any federal officer will not be tolerated. Period. This is unfortunately becoming a trend as radicals continue to attack law enforcement agents around the country.’

Habba said following the incident that, ‘I will not be intimidated by radical lunatics for doing my job.’

Lisa, 51, is described by authorities as being around 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing between 200 to 230 pounds.

The FBI said Lisa has ties to New York City and Mahwah, N.J., and ‘should be considered dangerous.’

On its website, the Justice Department said that as Acting U.S. Attorney and Special Attorney to the United States Attorney General, Habba ‘is responsible for overseeing all federal criminal prosecutions and the litigation of all civil matters in New Jersey in which the federal government has an interest.’

‘Including the offices in Newark, Camden, and Trenton, Ms. Habba supervises a staff of approximately 155 federal prosecutors and approximately 130 support personnel,’ according to the Justice Department.

Fox News’ Alexis McAdams contributed to this report.

Even before the conflict over Medicaid subsidies that resulted in a month-and-a-half-long government shutdown, Democrats were already attacking Republicans over their reforms to the federal health insurance program, which has expanded over many years.

Democrats say the GOP’s cuts were put in place to give tax breaks to the wealthy, and serve to raise people’s premiums and kick them off their coverage. But Republicans, free-market health policy experts and a disability advocate argue these are ‘scare tactics’ used to deceive the public about what Republicans are really trying to do to Medicaid.

According to conservative health policy experts who spoke to Fox News Digital, Republican changes have done nothing to harm those whom Medicaid was originally intended for — people not expected to be in the labor market, such as individuals with disabilities, pregnant women, children and seniors. They argue the Medicaid reforms built into Trump’s tax cuts have actually improved the federal healthcare program for those it is supposed to be serving. 

‘The Working Families Tax Cuts increased oversight efforts as part of a larger package of Medicaid program integrity measures to more precisely serve the traditional Medicaid and the Medicaid Expansion populations,’ said Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., who serves as chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. ‘Progressive Democrats and their Congressional allies are desperate as they try to pan the Working Families Tax Cuts as devastating to the traditional Medicaid population, which is not true! The traditional Medicaid population, which includes expectant mothers, low-income seniors, children and individuals with disabilities, is not affected by our bill!’

Stricter eligibility requirements — which experts who support the GOP’s approach told Fox News would ensure Medicaid dollars go to those they were intended for — are among the Republican reforms that have drawn Democrats’ ire. Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program had more than 82 million enrollees in 2024, compared with 42.1 million in 2005.
 

Democrats are also upset with provisions that impact how states get reimbursed for certain healthcare coverage via the federal government. Republicans have argued that Democratic states, like California, have been using funding loopholes in this framework so that federal dollars can help them pay for the ballooning cost of covering health insurance for non-U.S. citizens. 

The latest fight that triggered the recent government shutdown centered on enhanced Medicaid subsidies enacted under President Joe Biden during the coronavirus pandemic, described by his administration as a way to ease healthcare costs during that economic strain. Since February, Democrats have targeted vulnerable Republicans over the issue through ad buys and messaging campaigns. One group, Protect Our Care, reportedly spent $1 million on billboards and TV ads titled ‘Hands Off Medicaid.’

However, Paragon Health Institute President Brian Blase argues these changes serve to ‘rightfully refocus’ Medicaid, not ruin it. 

‘It requires able-bodied, working-age adults to work, go to school, or volunteer to receive benefits. It cracks down on corporate-welfare schemes that direct billions of dollars to wealthy, politically connected insurers and hospitals,’ Blase said. ‘And it reduces waste, fraud, and abuse that divert resources from those that truly need it.’ 

Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said point-blank that ‘members of the traditional Medicaid population will not lose coverage due to this law,’ while slamming the ‘left-wing media’ for perpetuating attacks on Republicans.

‘Time and again, Republicans have fought for strengthening, sustaining, and securing the Medicaid program for our most vulnerable Americans — expectant mothers, children, low-income seniors, and individuals living with disabilities,’ Guthrie argued. ‘Republicans are enabling the Medicaid program to serve its intended purpose, and we will continue to fight for solutions that protect the program for generations to come.’

Dean Clancy, Senior Health Policy Fellow at Americans for Prosperity, applauded Republicans for sticking to their guns in the face of ‘Democrats’ hyperbolic claims and histrionic scare tactics aimed at blocking any change to Medicaid.’  

Another angle of attack for Democrats has been claims that the Republican reforms will negatively impact people with disabilities. The fear is that the increased eligibility requirements will be a major barrier to people with disabilities who might struggle with such tasks. They also fear the funding framework change for states could push them to reduce benefits, eligibility or limit services for this population.   

But Rachel Barkley, Director of the National Center’s Able Americans Program, which promotes free-market policy reforms for people with disabilities, said she is confident that Republicans’ reforms to Medicaid will ‘directly improve’ the lives of those living with disabilities.

Among the reforms Barkley praised were the implementation of the Helping Communities with Better Support (HCBS) Act, which she said ‘expands access to Medicaid home- and community-based services for individuals with disabilities and their caregivers,’ while simultaneously increasing transparency and accountability for those waiting for care. 

Barkley also highlighted new tax provisions ushered in by Republicans that she said will serve to promote financial security for those with disabilities. 

But importantly, Barkley added, the GOP reforms — such as new work requirements — serve to ensure that disabled people are given the priority within Medicaid that they deserve.  

Clancy, meanwhile, noted that he and the folks at Americans For Prosperity, a D.C. think-tank that promotes free-market solutions to problems, were big fans of the ‘Personal Option’ that he says Republicans’ Medicaid reforms advanced. 

Clancy has described the ‘Personal Option’ as ‘a set of sensible, principled reforms that make American health care better, more affordable, and more accessible for everyone — without a government takeover.’ He said the approach gives Medicaid enrollees more control over how their services are delivered rather than leaving those decisions to the government.

A group of former federal judges sharply criticized a top Justice Department official this week for characterizing the court fights playing out in President Donald Trump’s second term as a ‘war’ against so-called ‘activist judges,’ remarks they described as unnecessarily inflammatory and amounting to ‘pouring oil’ on an already fast-burning fire.

Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, spoke colorfully last week during a fireside chat hosted by the Federalist Society. Blanche used his time to excoriate federal judges for pausing or blocking some of Trump’s biggest executive orders and actions since January and to urge young lawyers and law students in the audience to fight back. 

‘It is a war,’ Blanche said, ‘and it is something we will not win unless we keep on fighting.’

The judges ‘have a robe on, but they are more political, or as political, as the most liberal governor or DA,’ Blanche added. 

His remarks prompted a rebuke from the New York State Bar Association and from the Article III Coalition, a group of 50 former federal judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents. 

This type of rhetoric, ‘especially when voiced by high-ranking officials — not only endangers individual judges and court staff, but also undermines the public’s trust in the judiciary as an impartial and co-equal branch of government,’ the judges said in a letter. 

In a series of interviews this week, several former judges told Fox News Digital they were shocked by Blanche’s remarks, which they described as a departure from longstanding Justice Department norms and a threat to the judiciary both as an institution and to the individual judges who serve on the bench.

One judge said Blanche’s remarks were ‘wildly different from all prior decades and under all prior administrations’ he experienced in his more than 60-year career in D.C.

‘I’ve been in Washington since 1974, continuously, and I’ve never seen anything like it,’ Paul R. Michel, the former chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

Michel served as a special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation, a role in which he personally interviewed former President Nixon. 

‘It’s just startling for the deputy attorney general to be functioning as a PR ‘hatchet man’ instead of a law enforcement official,’ he said of Blanche’s remarks.

Michel and others in the group of retired judges told Fox News Digital they fear the rhetoric used could further erode public trust in the judiciary, a branch that the framers designed to interpret the law impartially and to serve as a check against excesses of the other branches, regardless of politics or the administration in charge. 

They noted that while parties often disagree with a decision or a near-term temporary order or motion, both the Justice Department and the opposing parties have a readily available mechanism to seek relief via the appeals process. 

Parties looking to challenge a temporary order or other form of injunctive relief can proceed with having the district court evaluate a case on its merits, kick it to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and, in some cases, the Supreme Court, for review, Philip Pro, a former U.S. district judge in Nevada appointed by President Ronald Reagan, told Fox News Digital.

Federal judges have attempted to issue near-term or emergency orders temporarily blocking some of Trump’s top policy priorities, including on immigration enforcement, birthright citizenship and sweeping layoffs across the federal government. The administration has responded to the lower court actions by seeking emergency relief from the higher courts, via emergency stays, which Blanche also touted during his remarks last week. 

Judges are ‘totally reactive’ by design, Pro said. ‘We’re sitting in our districts. The cases are randomly assigned.’

‘There is nothing ‘rogue’ about these decisions,’ Pro added. ‘Those wheels grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly well, and that’s the way you get resolution.’

Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law who attended the fireside remarks, told Fox News Digital in an interview he is sympathetic to the concerns voiced by the judges, but he also understands the broader issue Blanche may have been trying to get at, which is the power the courts have to review the actions of the executive branch. 

This has emerged as a particular pain point not only for Trump but for his predecessors, each of whom has sought to enact some of their policy priorities via executive order in a bid to sidestep a clunky and slow-moving Congress.

Those actions are therefore more vulnerable to emergency intervention from the federal courts, Blackman said, though the degree to which judges can or should act in this space is the subject of ongoing debate.

‘I don’t see Blanche’s comments as calling for violence,’ Blackman said. ‘I think it’s more trying to say that there’s just this struggle between the executive branch and the judiciary that is not normal.’ 

Trump is far from the first president to publicly complain about ‘activist’ judges for hampering his policies. Such criticisms stretch back decades and include former presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, among others. 

Still, the judges say they are concerned by Blanche’s remarks, which are a stark departure from what they experienced in their own careers, including while serving as federal prosecutors.

‘Calling judges ‘rogue’ because they apply the law in a politically unfavorable way is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary in our constitutional structure,’ Allyson K. Duncan, a former judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, said in a statement. 

Michel, the former special prosecutor for the Watergate investigation, noted he worked for two successive deputy attorneys general in the ‘exact post Blanche now holds,’ but who gave much different marching orders.

‘Their instructions to me were, ‘Politics are outside the boundaries for Justice Department employees,’ and politics are ‘not to have any influence,” he said. ‘We were not to pay any attention to what somebody in the White House might say, or in the media or elsewhere. We were to be a ‘politics-free zone.’

‘That seemed to me to be entirely appropriate,’ Michel said. ‘The power to investigate, the power to indict and the power to prosecute and convict are awesome, awesome powers,’ he added.

The group also cited concerns for their colleagues who remain on the bench at a time when public threats to judges have increased, according to data from U.S. Marshals. This includes online harassment, threats of physical violence and ‘doxxing’ judges at their home addresses by sending them unsolicited pizzas. Some deliveries have been made in the name of a judge’s son who was shot and killed in 2020 after opening the door to a disgruntled individual disguised as a delivery person.

The number of threats made against federal judges in 2025 has outpaced threats from the past 12-month period, according to the U.S. Marshals Service, prompting a push for Congress to take action. 

‘Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s remarks reflect a reality the Department of Justice confronts every day — a growing number of activist judges attempting to set national policy from the bench,’ a spokesperson for the Justice Department told Fox News Digital on Friday in response to a request for comment. 

‘The department will continue to follow the Constitution, defend its lawful authorities and push back when activist rulings threaten public safety or undermine the will of the American people.’ 

In the annals of ‘smoking gun’ documents, the recently revealed handwritten notes by James Comey rank right up there with the infamous tapes that imploded Richard Nixon’s presidency.  

Unfortunately, the ex-FBI potentate is ‘Nixonian’ in a myriad of ways — needy, narcissistic, vindictive and manipulative. They both professed honesty but treated truth with utter contempt. Nixon gave us Watergate while Comey bequeathed the Russia Hoax. Each was forced from office mired in disgrace.  

Alas, there’s one more eerie resemblance. Just as Nixon tried to sabotage his infamous Oval Office recordings, Comey’s combustible notes were consigned to an incinerator.     

Stuffed in one of five ‘burn bags’ that were secretly squirreled away in a locked high security room at the FBI, his self-incriminating scribbles were supposed to go up in smoke. For reasons unknown or undisclosed, they did not.

In one damning note, Comey confirms what some of us have known and argued all along — he knew almost at the outset of the Russia collusion narrative that it was an odious fiction conjured up by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign and personally approved by her on July 26, 2016.  

Clinton’s objective, according to Special Counsel John Durham’s 2023 report, was ‘to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services,’ thereby tipping the upcoming presidential election in her favor.  

When later questioned by Congress about his knowledge of the epic deceit, Comey claimed an acute case of amnesia. He feigned no recollection whatsoever of Clinton’s opprobrious plot to smear Trump.  

However, Comey’s missive to himself puts a conspicuous lie to that testimony. It reads, ‘HRC plan to tie Trump.’ It is not something that anyone would ever forget. 

While it is difficult to discern, the information appears attributable to ‘JB,’ which is almost certainly then-CIA Director John Brennan. This comports with Brennan’s own declassified handwritten notes that intelligence communications had uncovered Clinton’s political chicanery.

At an urgent White House meeting, Brennan had disclosed the shocking information to President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Comey. Instead of divulging the truth to the American public, they all remained mum and watched idly — perhaps happily — as the hoax gradually morphed into full-blown faux scandal that nearly toppled Trump’s presidency.    

Comey’s notes verify his awareness of the ‘Clinton Plan,’ as it was dubbed. They are written on an FBI notepad marked ‘Director’ and dated Sept. 26, 2016, which coincides in time with a meeting of high-ranking U.S. national security officials that included Brennan and James Clapper, director of National Intelligence (DNI).  

Instead of pursuing Clinton for a criminal scheme to defraud the government in a presidential election, as U.S. intelligence officials strongly recommended to the FBI in a ‘Referral Memo’ on Sept. 7, 2016, the unscrupulous Comey did just the opposite. He appropriated Clinton’s fabrication to target her opponent.  

When later questioned by Congress about his knowledge of the epic deceit, Comey claimed an acute case of amnesia. He feigned no recollection whatsoever of Clinton’s opprobrious plot to smear Trump.  

Simultaneously, Comey concealed the ‘Clinton Plan’ because it was highly exculpatory. If it became known or if Congress was informed, it would unmask Hillary’s treachery and exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing in the collusion fable. 

Comey was not about to let that happen. He had already launched without predicate his dilating investigation of Trump and was deeply invested in protecting Hillary.

You will recall that, on July 5, 2016, Comey stood before television cameras and, absent any authority, inexplicably cleared the presumptive Democratic nominee of the various crimes that she had clearly committed in her notorious email fiasco over the deliberate and reckless mishandling of classified records. But that’s not all.  

Comey also scuttled the bureau’s investigation into suspected criminal activity surrounding the Clinton Foundation and the millions of dollars funneled into it from Russian and other foreign sources. Substantial evidence developed by U.S. attorneys was thereafter buried on his orders. You can read about it in the Durham Report, pages 78-81. 

July 5 was also a pivotal day for another reason, as I explained in my 2018 book, ‘The Russia Hoax.’  

At the very moment that Comey was absolving Clinton, his FBI was furtively meeting with the author of the phony anti-Trump ‘dossier’ funded by Hillary and Democrats. Although the FBI swiftly debunked Christopher Steele’s scurrilous document, Comey was undeterred. He exploited it as a pretext in a malicious attempt to frame Trump for unidentified crimes he never committed. 

Comey’s motivation was obvious. His newly unearthed emails show that he expected Clinton would win the election. He even bragged that he would soon be working for a president-elect Clinton who would be ‘very grateful.’ His gamble fueled corrupt acts.

Comey never imagined that Trump would prevail. So, he politicized his power and weaponized the FBI to meddle in the presidential contest for the benefit of Hillary. When his illicit scheme failed and Trump was elected, Comey doubled down on the collusion hoax in an attempt to destroy Trump and drive him from office.  

This is what abuse of power looks like. Facts were invented or exaggerated. Laws were perverted and ignored. The law enforcers became the lawbreakers. They falsely accused Trump while shielding the real culprit, Clinton.  

Comey’s ‘smoking gun’ notes only came to light because he recently filed several motions to dismiss his federal indictment in Virginia for false statements and obstruction of Congress. Among other things, he ironically asserts vindictive prosecution by Trump and separately contends that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s appointment was improper. The outcome of those matters is pending.  

Prosecutors responded to the first motion by sharing a trove of documents — many of them classified — discovered in the five ‘burn bags.’  

They were destined for a smoky grave just days before Trump assumed office again on Jan. 20, 2025, in what can only be described as a brazen attempt to obstruct justice and commit the crime of willful destruction of documents under 18 U.S.C. 2071. Who was behind it, we don’t yet know.

Comey’s motivation was obvious. His newly unearthed emails show that he expected Clinton would win the election. 

In addition to the notes that Comey penned, other uncovered records cited in the court filing further substantiate the government’s charges that he lied to Congress when he denied authorizing anonymous leaks to the press in violation of FBI guidelines. He was covertly manipulating media reporting through a conduit.  

After one successful leak, Comey sent a message to his collaborator stating, ‘Well done my friend. Who knew this would. E [sic] so uh fun.’ (Who knew this would be so fun.) Deploying a Gmail account, he hid his intrigues under the alias ‘Reinhold Niebuhr,’ a deceased ethicist. There was nothing moral about what Comey was doing. It was sleazy.  

But that’s not all. Among the ‘burn bag’ contents were materials that reveal the appalling breadth of the lawfare campaign waged first by the Obama administration and, later, the Biden administration against Trump and many others. Some of the documents shed vital light on the January 6 breach of the Capitol, the 2020 election dispute and the FBI’s dubious raid on Mar-a-Lago.  

All of that was leveraged by Special Counsel Jack Smith to ignite the double indictments against Trump that were eventually tossed. The evidence is compelling that both prosecutions were politically motivated to stop him from retaking the White House.   

The genesis of those two cases arose from a secret FBI investigation code named ‘Arctic Frost,’ approved by Attorney General Merrick Garland and then-FBI Director Christopher Wray in April 2022. In due time, Smith surreptitiously obtained nearly 200 subpoenas to capture personal telephone communications of more than 400 Republicans. Anyone in Trump’s orbit was targeted, including eight U.S. senators and even media organizations.     

It is no accident that the stunning discovery of the ‘burn bags’ dovetails with a newly impaneled grand jury investigation in South Florida that encompasses the whole gamut of corrupt acts aimed at Trump — from the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ debacle to the errant ‘Arctic Frost’ probe. The former evolved into the latter that led to the misbegotten Smith prosecutions. Altogether, they impacted three successive presidential elections. More than two dozen subpoenas are reportedly being issued for the grand jury to consider.   

Evidence of an expansive and ongoing conspiracy to torment Trump will likely be examined in the context of two federal anti-corruption statutes that criminalize abuses of power, 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242. These civil rights laws make it a felony to willfully deprive people of their constitutional rights under color of law or pretense of legal authority.  

Additional documents uncovered and declassified by current DNI Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe have contributed to the mounting evidence of manufactured intelligence and criminal wrongdoing that the grand jury will inevitably evaluate.

As Comey works hard to avoid the Virginia trial that he insists he wants, his nefarious machinations that instigated the long-running lawfare campaign will not escape the direct attention of the Florida grand jury. The same is true of other government actors who mangled facts and contorted the law to persecute Trump in an unbridled crusade that ran roughshod over our legal system for nearly a decade. 

During that time, the rule of law came under sustained attack by high government officials like Comey and so many others who abused their positions of power to subvert our framework of justice and undermine the democratic process.

The enemy is within. Trump was their target … and their victim. And so were the American people. They were harmed and forced to endure a divisive national trauma that should never have been. The wounds are still with us. And so, a reckoning awaits.  

Yet, just as Nixon evaded prosecution by courtesy of a pardon, will Comey somehow elude accountability? 

In 2020, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer unleashed a threat against the Supreme Court’s conservative justices in the wake of their decision to overturn Roe vs Wade’s national protection for abortion. ‘You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,’ he bellowed. ‘You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’

Although Schumer’s bellicose words may have contributed to an attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s life back then, five years later it is not the men and women in robes suffering a whirlwind, but rather Schumer himself, and it is one of his own making.

This week, Schumer is facing calls to step down from his leadership position from multiple House Democrats including Squad member Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and neo-centrist Rep. Ro Khana, D-Calif., after his shambolic performance during the government shutdown.

It is likely only a matter of time before such calls for Schumer’s ouster echo in the upper chamber as well.

In the end, Christ had an easier 40 days in the desert than Schumer had during this shutdown, where he went from swearing not just that Democrats would never back down, but that they were winning the fight politically, to watching Democrats capitulate with nothing in return.

As former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy pointed out, this was the ‘Seinfeld shutdown,’ a shutdown about nothing, and Schumer was decidedly George.

Tellingly, Chuck himself did not sign on to the deal to open the government, start paying out SNAP benefits and unchoke our airports, which only makes him appear weaker, because he can’t control his caucus.

Schumer is now facing the first true crisis of his five decades in politics, and it doesn’t seem like he knows what hit him.

The scuttlebut in Washington, D.C., and the Empire State is that, by hook or by crook, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will take Schumer’s Senate seat in 2028, just like she took Rep. Joe Crowley’s House seat seven years ago.

AOC is not being particularly shy about it, saying this week, ‘We have several Senate primaries this cycle. I know I’m being asked about New York, [but] that is years from now. I have to remind my own constituents because they think that this election is this year.’

This is a long way from, ‘Chuck is doing a great job and I have no plans to run against him.’

In the recent mayor’s race in New York City, in which AOC was democrat socialist Zohran Mamdani’s most important surrogate, Schumer bravely declined, even on Election Day itself, to disclose whether he had cast a ballot for Zany Zohran.

It was actually quite amazing: Schumer is the highest-ranking elected Democrat in the United States of America and he decided not to weigh in on whether his party should embrace communism.

Schumer couldn’t reject Mamdani because he and his ilk are obviously the future of the party, but he couldn’t embrace him because his pro-capitalism and pro-Israel donors won’t have it.

Schumer wasn’t sitting on the fence in the mayor’s race, he was impaled on it.

Right now, whether fairly or not, Schumer is the avatar for the old establishment Democrat Party that shuffled off the stage with former President Joe Biden. He is the political version of the Washington Generals, being dunked on over and over by the more talented socialist Globetrotters.

In fact, this whirlwind that Schumer has reaped is entirely his own fault. At any point, he could have shown courage, acted like an adult and tried to work in good faith with Republicans and the Trump administration. Instead, he decided to curse on TikTok like the radical kids who want his job.

It was Schumer who helped to oust former Democrat senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin for opposing the party’s push to nuke the filibuster in 2021. Where did he think his support was going to come from once he tossed out the moderates?

In the end, Schumer’s career will be a cautionary tale, lacking the courage to rein in the radical elements in his caucus and party. He instead opened the door for them and hastened his own exile from power.

Chuck Schumer has well and truly reaped the whirlwind, and in very short order he will most likely be paying the price.